Humanities desk
< January 5	<< Dec \| January \| Feb >>	January 7 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is a transcluded archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

January 6

Kalmyk separatism

Have the Kalmyks ever expressed any separatist sentiments? Futurist110 (talk) 03:34, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Check out Deportation of the Kalmyks#Background. More recently, there were news about Kalmyks angry at use of their republic to bolster Donbas separatism. Brandmeister^talk 10:47, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Futurist110 (talk) 22:48, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I need to find 11,700 more votes

or however many it was. But I'm missing a certain part of that: say the Georgia Sec. of State actually finds those votes, so Trump wins Georgia. He is still behind in the EV, right? Does that mean he has to make similar phone calls to at least 2 more states, to win the EV? Of course that assumes Biden doesn't also make phone calls, and that there are no large states close enough to flip. Thanks. 2601:648:8202:96B0:0:0:0:313A (talk) 03:42, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You're crediting Trump with more of a strategic plan than he in fact has. He's flailing around desperately, and his vanity is stung by the idea that he's the first GOP presidential candidate in almost 30 years to lose Georgia. Biden is not making such calls, not only because they're unprecedented and highly unethical (arguably illegal), but also because he has no need to (he won). AnonMoos (talk) 05:11, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Or any plan at all. I will concede (as should he) that the Orange Buffoon has shown that there is voter fraud afoot, even if he had to "self-fulfill" it. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:17, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Donald Trump is playing 666-dimensional chess! What else is new? ;) Futurist110 (talk) 07:44, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The point is not to win this election, the point is to win other elections; Georgia, for example, had two runoff elections the same week as Trump's inopportune phone call, and there will be further elections in 2022 (for Senate and House of Representatives seats) and 2024 (for President and Senate and House of Representatives seats) and the strategy being employed is to assure that enough of Trumps support remains energized for those elections. Winning the recently decided election is not the only part of this strategy; there is also being disruptive to the democratic process in general and casting doubts on the legitimacy of the entire system; it is a long-term strategy that Trump and his allies started a while back as winning an election by having better ideas and getting more votes seems to be less and less a viable strategy for them, so they're trying disruption instead. See [1] and [2] and [3] for example. --Jayron 32 11:47, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect, nonsense. The Trumpet has no interest in future GOPer success; he’s done. He’s burning bridges so fast he’ll soon run out of kindling. The GOP needs to disband. DOR (HK) (talk) 01:27, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Which GOP? The Republican Party is now the Trump Party. --Lambiam 11:18, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Even if the votes were found the electors were designated by the state and have voted, so it would make no difference. Same as if you were able, today, to make a convincing case that the Florida vote totals in 2000 were in favor of Gore. Bush was elected by the EC, and he was inaugurated. Therefore he was President. When Biden is inaugurated, if significant evidence did materialize of widespread election fraud, he would still be President. 69.174.144.79 (talk) 16:04, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

How mountaineers avoid sinking into deep snow covers?

Particularly on mountain peaks, including Everest where the snow cover is about 3 meters deep? 212.180.235.46 (talk) 10:39, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not all snow is of identical density; the amount of "packing" can vary a lot from place to place. Snow can certainly be hard enough to support humans, and even vehicles, as is common in Antarctica. See Classifications of snow for various ways snow can be classified, but the simple answer is that there are plenty of places where snow is densely packed enough to support a human walking on it. --Jayron 32 11:39, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

For some types of snow they can use snowshoes. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 12:10, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

: There is also a matter of moisture: Mt Everest is probably pretty dry, given the altitude. DOR (HK) (talk) 01:30, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Where was this arrest image from?

Does anyone here happen to know where this image (mildly NSFW) of what seems to be a naked arrest of a man came from? Since reverse image searches turn up nothing, it might be from a video. If there are other places I could ask about this, please also let me know. StellarHalo (talk) 13:45, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Treason law in the USA

Resolved

18 U.S. Code § 2381 says "Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States". Our article Treason laws in the United States says "Levying war means the assembly of armed people to overthrow of the government or to resist its laws", but this sentence is not referenced. Is it correct? Thank you, DuncanHill (talk) 21:04, 6 January 2021 (UTC) [reply]

not entirely helpful

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Treason is defined in the US Constitution. See Article Three of the United States Constitution, where it likewise uses the term "levy". "Levy" in this sense means "raising an army".[4] The law you're citing merely specifies possible penalties for treason, which the Constitution does not do, it merely defines it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:09, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I see from that article that the Supreme Court has ruled "there must be an actual assembling of men, for the treasonable purpose, to constitute a levying of war", not "raising an army". DuncanHill (talk) 21:17, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What's the practical difference between the two? What is it about the definition of treason that you don't understand? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:45, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I see from Article Three of the United States Constitution that the Supreme Court has ruled "there must be an actual assembling of men, for the treasonable purpose, to constitute a levying of war", which seems to me to be what the original article I referred to meant. DuncanHill (talk) 21:59, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

That's why I linked it earlier, which you then boxed up. But as long as you understand it now, you're good. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:33, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thinking that "assembling of men for a treasonable purpose" is not synonymous with "raising an army" does not reveal a lack of understanding. --Lambiam 11:09, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to explain the difference. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:43, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I would assume “treasonable purpose” includes giving aid and comfort to the enemy. So treason might include setting up a nonviolent logistical apparatus to support a foreign army. 69.174.144.79 (talk) 15:58, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, OR in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort." The only way to "levy war" is to take up arms, i.e. to form an army. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:19, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An "actual assembling of men" is not synonymous with army. "Taking up arms" is not synonymous with "forming an army". But the original question has been answered, the OP has marked the thread as resolved, and we really do not need this continued and I think deliberate obfuscation and contrariness. This thread should be closed. Again. DuncanHill (talk) 18:25, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The OP being you. You may own your user page, but you don't own this thread or any other. Nor am I convinced you understand. Read what an "army" is,[5] and tell your audience how an "army" is somehow different from "a group of armed men." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:04, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Army?

What's the distinction, if any, between an army and an armed group? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:40, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In modern warfare, "army" refers to a field army when it's not being used in the singular sense (as in "U.S. Army"). --47.152.93.24 (talk) 20:58, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What would be the distinction from a "militia"? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:03, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In the modern context, an army is a formally organized, typically land-based, military group representing a sovereign nation. An armed group is any group of individuals bearing arms. The term "militia" has many meanings, ranging from "a formally organized defensive force, such as a national guard unit" to "a loosely affiliated armed group", and everything in between. 69.174.144.79 (talk) 22:12, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

See militia for a definition, which is rather broad. Basically, they are not full-time soldiers. Alansplodge (talk) 14:29, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Contact between Siberian and American peoples post-migration

My understanding is that according to the land bridge theory, around 70 individuals migrated from Siberia to the Americas across the isthmus in what is now the Bering Strait, and that the indigenous peoples of the latter (with the exception of the Eskimo-Aleut and Athabaskan peoples) descend from them, with no contact between the people of Siberia and America after the land bridge receded.

But as demonstrated by the Austronesian expansion, humans clearly became capable at some point in ancient times of traversing significant distances by sea, and even in the case of Northeast Asia, the fact that the Ainu were able to colonise the Kuril Islands suggests that they, too, had an idea of how to cross the seas in that region.

My question, then, is why did the presence of a water body permanently halt contact between the two groups; in other words, why did groups like the Chukchi, Nivkh, Ainu, etc. never try to cross the Bering Sea, in which process they would have inevitably run into their distant relatives across the water?

Hope my question makes sense, M Imtiaz (talk · contribs) 23:00, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As described in Settlement of the Americas § Chronology, all mainstream theories assume there have been several waves of immigrants crossing from Siberia to Alaska. There has almost certainly some form of contact later, only not in historic times in the form of a significant migration. Big Diomede Island, which is closer to continental Siberia than to Alaska, was part of the area inhabited by the Alaskan Native people of Iñupiat until they were forced off past World War II. See also Pre-Columbian trans-oceanic contact theories § Siberia-Alaska contact. --Lambiam 10:55, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

M_Imtiaz -- there were definitely some contacts between Alaska and far eastern Siberia, but succesful migration to an area often depends on the migrants having some comparative advantage over the previous inhabitants of the area, and what that comparative advantage would be in this case is not so clear (at least to me). In the relatively recent centuries before Europeans intruded into the area, the tendency seems to have been migration from Alaska to Siberia -- see Siberian Yupik, Sirenik Eskimo language etc. AnonMoos (talk) 18:36, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

How would you know that a few people never did? Japanese castaways periodically wound up in North America, being carried by the Kuroshio Current. What we can state scientifically is, "There is no evidence of large-scale migration", which is indeed the case. And it's pretty much proven that Austronesian people did make it to South America, and a group of them apparently stuck around enough to leave genetic evidence. See the article linked above. But again, there wasn't whole-scale migration of entire peoples, which is unsurprising given the logistics and likely conflict with existing people. The Norse that came to North America likewise had conflict with the indigenous inhabitants. --47.152.93.24 (talk) 21:05, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a reliable source for "Japanese castaways periodically wound up in North America, being carried by the Kuroshio Current."? We should add that to the article. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 12:40, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Otokichi was one. Also History of Japanese Americans. Searching for "Japanese castaway" pulls up more. The content is just not well-organized. --47.152.93.24 (talk) 08:06, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]